Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I would point out to the gentleman that in the LIHEAP program, 15 percent of that goes for the weatherization programs, in addition to paying the bills. So it is a double dip in a sense, the weatherization program.

Mr. REGULA. That is true. What we are trying to do, and would agree to, in a way, to help these people, would be to agree to level funding but keep the requirement that the States put in the 25 percent, which of course would mean that there would be another $28 million available for the program. It would seem if the States believe in this, and they administer it, and they are all in a budget surplus position, that they would want to do this.

Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman understands the costs, and I think this would be part of what the gentleman outlined, the costs are in LIHEAP. They would only be addressed with LIHEAP.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have not heard from the States. It has been on the table for quite some time. I do not think it is something that is being brought up at the last minute. I think it is certainly in keeping with the State-Federal partnership, and again, I would emphasize that under what I have proposed here, which would be to accept the gentleman's first amendment, level fund it, and keep the 25 percent requirement, which would give them another $28 million, and when the States are in surplus and the needs are, as the gentleman outlined, very substantial, and since they administer the programs, they should know where they can best use that funding.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, and I will mention this on my own time, but what we are trying to do is get more money into weatherization, but we feel the States ought to participate in this program.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Just let me say there is never a right time for anything, but if there is a right time, this is it. I think it is about time that the States take some responsibility. We have federal-state partnerships. We have partnerships in Medicaid; we have partnerships in the welfare programs. This is very consistent with that. And to say the States cannot handle it, let me just point out that every State, every State, all 50, project a surplus for 1999. Forty-nine States had a surplus in 1998; 13 States had surpluses in excess of $1 billion; 21 States had surpluses in excess of 10 percent of their annual budget. So when we look at these numbers, the States are perfectly capable of doing this. And if they believe in the program, that is the key, if they believe as much as the gentleman from Vermont said, they are going to come through. Now, it is not something that will happen next week. This program has a lag time. The money for the 1999 budget will be distributed at the end of the year. So the States have plenty of time to accommodate to this program. Obviously, the legislatures, as they meet this year or next year will be able to address this if they believe in the program. That is the key. If they believe in it, they are going to come up with their 25 percent. And just as important, I think they are going to do a better job of administering the funds. If we want to help the people who need this program, as pointed out by the gentleman from Chicago, we should vote against this amendment because, as the language in the bill reflects, that will result in people having more weatherization money. True, the States will have to contribute, but there is no reason in the world, with the kind of balances they have, that they cannot be a partner with the Federal Government in providing and meeting the needs of those people who are beneficiaries of the weatherization program. Now, let me emphasize again, this is not LIHEAP. LIHEAP is in the Health and Human Services budget. That money will be dealt with at a different time. We are talking about putting on storm doors and storm windows and fixing the roofs of those homes that need weatherization programs. I think it is imperative that this Congress, this body, address a problem of ensuring that there is more money available for those who need help, and certainly with the kind of balances that the States have, there is no reason they cannot share in serving the people of their State along with the Federal Government. We are still talking about 75 percent of this being Federal taxpayers' money, and certainly the States can meet their share. So I would urge my colleagues to not vote for this amendment. Vote against the second Sanders amendment. Let us make the States a partner in a program that is very important to the people of this Nation. Let us ensure that there will be more funding available for weatherization than we presently have. This amendment is structured in a way that the States will have plenty of time to accommodate. I have not heard one word from a governor, neither have my colleagues on the subcommittee, and yet this has been in our subcommittee mark for several weeks. We had no comment in the subcommittee markup; no comment, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, in the full committee. It is not a surprise. We are talking about something that is historically part of the Federal-State partnership. We all serve the same people. Here is an opportunity, by voting against this amendment, to give the people in all our States more help for their weatherization problems.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I understand the gentleman's concerns. We likewise have a concern. We feel that we have a responsible way to address this situation by saying that in view of the fact that we have so little money to work with in terms of our responsibilities under this bill. As I mentioned yesterday, we had over 400 letters, more than 2,000 requests, and we have had tried to balance it out in every way possible. So what we have proposed was a very small reduction, relatively, in the weatherization program and give the States the ability to match with a 25 percent amount on their part. I think that is a very responsible way to do this. They match in Medicaid. They match in a number of the other programs that are part of our social support system. I see no reason they could not match on this one at least 25 percent. I think the percentage in Medicaid is higher than that. Plus, if the States were putting money in, I think they would do a more efficient job of administering the program. They would be stakeholders, and they would perhaps make a greater effort to ensure that the monies would be spent wisely. On balance, what we have proposed in the combination of a slight reduction plus the 25 percent match would increase the program $17 million over level funding, and this would be an increase of about $28 million or more over the bill number. So I hope that the Members will give this some thought, because I know that States always want to get in, and it is nice to get the free money. But we have a Federal responsibility. We have a responsibility to a whole host of things, parks and forests and just dozens of things. Therefore, I think the States should certainly take some measure of responsibility in this. Mr. Chairman, I would have to oppose the amendment, in the absence of making an agreement to not offer the second amendment on the 25 percent match, because I think the two fit together. Overall we are saying, in effect, we want the States to have more money to spend in weatherization, to increase the program, but that they at least take a reasonable share of the cost. I do not think that is asking too much of the States. In the absence of that, we would have to oppose this amendment because, of course, to take the money out of the administration of the SPR account does not make good policy at this juncture. Right now we are in good shape on energy, but a few of us remember the late seventies when we were not so good. We have created SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to give us energy independence. To take money out of that account which is designed to administer the SPR program, to make sure the pumps are working, it is not much value to have these millions of barrels of oil in the ground if we cannot pump it out in the event of a crisis or in the event of a shortfall. In my judgment, the fact there is an SPR has probably helped avoid another OPEC blackmail because those who would do something of that type of action again know that we do have a means of responding. We do have a reserve. Something like 60 days worth of oil. And I think it would be a grievous policy mistake to not allow us to keep those facilities in operating condition. Secretary Richardson advised our subcommittee that he wants to put more oil in the SPR reserve to give us a greater energy independence. We see how volatile the events are in the Balkans where, of course, as well as the Middle East; and I hope the Members will weigh carefully taking money out of an account that is very important to our energy security. We are spending $265 billion to have security with airplanes and tanks and so on. But if we do not have petroleum, we do not have much security; and, therefore, I would urge Members to vote against this amendment unless we can work something out to establish a requirement for the States to participate. Let me point out again that the States at this point, 50 States, it was 49 last year, have surplus balances and $28 million would be a very small amount spread over the 50 States for them to contribute. And I again have to emphasize that if the States are administering the program, they are responsible for it, at the very minimum they should be participating. We hear a lot about partnerships today. That word is used repeatedly on the floor of this House.

Mr. REGULA. Not at the moment, no.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Well, the conferences have some pluses I must say. But I hope the Members will maintain the level that we have in the bill. I think it is a responsible amount. Again, I commend the chairman of NEA and also the chairman of NEH. Both have provided excellent leadership for the programs, and that is very important in maintaining public acceptance and Congressional support.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am just trying to lay out the facts.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we put great emphasis on in our committee is forest health. We have 200 million acres of forests, 156 national forests, almost 800 million visitor days, and the health of our national forests have a profound impact on the health of our private forests, which, of course, is also millions of acres. We have cut back substantially in this program. In spite of inflation, it is 40 percent less than it was 10 years ago. But I think it would be penny wise and pound foolish to cut research and to eliminate scientists. We have more and more problems because of the shrinking world. Diseases are brought in. Let me cite one, Dutch elm disease. Twenty years ago we had magnificent elm trees in our cities that lined the boulevards. Today most of them are gone. Why? Because the Dutch elm disease was brought into this country on imported lumber and it has just decimated the elm forests of our country. That is just one example. There are many. Another is gypsy moths. There is a constant proliferation of diseases and problems that threaten the national forests as well as the private forests. We have cut back, as I mentioned earlier, but I think it would be unwise to take another cut on something that is so vitally important to this great natural resource. We have made every emphasis in our bill to encourage good management and to ensure that the dollars are used carefully. I know the gentleman cited a number of sort of esoteric titles. Some of this involved recreation symposiums, ideas of how to better provide visitor services, and perhaps it was a poor choice of words in describing these programs, and I do not know that all of them are necessarily good. We have said to the Forest Service people, make the dollars take care of the health of our forests, because they are a priceless resource of this Nation. It not only goes to the question of private forests, it goes to the question of habitat, it goes to the question of our streams, the fish, because if you have diseases in the forests, it is going to get into the water system and on downstream. For that matter, a lot of water supply in this country starts in our national forests. So this has a reach much greater than just the forests themselves. I would think it would be a very unwise move. To say what the other body has done is not a very compelling reason to me to make a change, because I would be reluctant to follow the other body's decision on every part of a bill. In the judgment of our committee, we put a heavy emphasis on maintaining healthy forests, healthy habitat for wildlife, healthy streams, good water quality, provide assistance to some of the private forests, avoid the sort of things that impact heavily on them. I would urge the committee members to vote ``no'' on this amendment and protect the health of our 200 million acres of priceless assets in the form of the national forests.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, has he checked with Secretary Richardson as to whether or not he agrees that this money should be taken out of SPR? Because I know that he has advised us that he wants to add oil to SPR, rather than to take it out. The gentleman's money deals with the operation of the SPR account, but we are already short there. The pumps are not working properly. My question is, has Secretary Richardson endorsed the idea of taking money out of SPR?

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment. We made a real effort in the arts to broaden the base, and this is just one more step in making that happen. I think when Mr. Yates was here we had some groups come in from situations that the gentleman described and performed, and it made us realize how important access to the arts were in their lives.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with this amendment. It simply codifies what we had directed be done last year in the bill, and so it is appropriate to accept this amendment and we support it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that we have cut this account $2 million already below the 1999 level and recognize that, in an effort to save money, this I think might be a little bit heavy. We need to assess it, and we could do that in the conference procedure.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this is an 11-page piece of legislation. I think normally it should be handled by the authorizing committees. We do not have any objection to the substance of the amendment and are not going to oppose it. But I do think that it ought to be considered as part of the authorizing process. However, we will not object.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).